Impact of Palliative Care in Evaluating and Relieving Symptoms in Patients with Advanced Cancer. The DEMETRA Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Cancer patients experience a number of symptoms throughout the course of the disease. We aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the symptom burden in patients with advanced cancer at admission to specialist palliative care (PC) services and seven days later, to estimate the immediate impact of PC intervention.Patient and methods: The analysis was based on an observational, prospective, multicenter study (named DEMETRA) conducted in Italy to outline the profile of patients, families and PC services in different care settings (hospital, hospice and home care). The prevalence and intensity of symptoms were assessed using three tools, including the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS).Results: Five PC centers recruited 865 cancer patients. Thirty-three different symptoms were observed at baseline, the most frequent being asthenia (85%) and lack of appetite (71%). Two-thirds of patients experienced six to twelve simultaneous symptoms. The intensity of the most frequent symptoms according to ESAS varied from 5.5 for asthenia to 3.9 for nausea. The presence and intensity of physical symptoms increased with increasing levels of anxiety and depression. After seven days, prevalence decreased significantly only for nausea and breathlessness, while intensity diminished significantly for almost all symptoms. At admission we noted a correlation between patients' symptoms and the care setting. After one week, the symptom intensity was uniformly reduced in all settings.Conclusions: The study confirmed the considerable symptom burden of patients with advanced cancer. PC intervention significantly lessened the severity of symptoms, despite the patients’ advanced disease and short survival.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".